Gov. Blagojevich signed the Smoke-Free Illinois Act yesterday. This legislation protects health-conscious non-smokers who lack the common sense to avoid smoking establishments. You gotta love the logic: non-smokers choose of their own free will to patronize a restaurant that allows smoking, then complain about the smoke. Then these victims by choice get a law passed forcing restaurant owners to disallow smoking in their own private business.
Or, they could have just gone to a non-smoking restaurant and the problem would have been solved, leaving property rights intact. Being a non-smoker myself, I very rarely had to put up with cigarette smoke because most of the time I would just go to restaurants that didn’t allow smoking. Silly me.
the totalitarians always start by attacking something unpopular. Who wants to stand up for a filthy, disgusting habit like smoking? We’d all be better off it was gone, wouldn’t we?
Then again, our taxes would go up because the gov’t makes a ton on cigarette taxes and unemployment would go up because revenues would go down for the hospitals, doctors and drug companies that are raking in big money from sick smokers. I suppose they will find new diseases to keep us sick.
I understand that I, a non-smoker, have the right and ability to avoid “smoking” restaurants. I know this because I do skirt “smoking” restaurants for the “non-smoking” alternatives. As I clearly understand this concept I have never once complained when in a place of business that allowed smoking. I did not like it, but I knew that there was no other choice.
Restaurants are not the only places of business that allow smoking. If it were that easy I would not be so eager to see this law enacted.
The problem arises when there are little to no other options. If I want to visit co-workers or friends at a bar I must tolerate all that accompanies cigarette smoke. I rarely drink alcohol and when I do it is in moderation and done in a social vein. I would very much enjoy the ability socialize sans smoke filled air. If more alternatives existed I would dutifully visit those places.
As it stands now my time is limited when patronizing a smoky establishment. My girlfriend has asthma and cigarette smoke exacerbates her condition. In this case one person’s actions infringe on the rights of another. It is not as though cigarette smoke singularly affects the toker as the stench and visible vapor waft freely. This, to me, is what sets smoking apart from the legislation of something like cheeseburgers. If the guy next to me wants to eat six cheeseburgers every night his cholesterol will not leach into me.
I am acutely aware that this new law sets us forward on a slippery slope. The precedent created could have significant impact on our future. I am decidedly for the anti-smoking law, but I truly hope that we do not pay for this with lost future liberties.
Stephen,
Instead of looking at your situation negatively “The problem arises when there are little to no other options. If I want to visit co-workers or friends at a bar I must tolerate all that accompanies cigarette smoke”, why not turn it into a positive? You could have been the pioneer in non-smoking bars and maybe even have cornered the market.
Stephen:
There are non smoking bars and that beef joint out in Westlake is one. No smoking anywhere inside. So, smoke bothers a person with asthma. That is true but that person shouldn’t expect people in a bar who smoke to stop simply because she came in. Go to Starbucks and skip the booze since you don’t drink that much.
When Springfield enacted the no smoking ban, 13 bars closed. In Peoria, a huge amount of tax revenue will be lost when bars fail to renew their tobacco selling licenses as restaurants will do. Why sell them if you can’t smoke them there?
How many bars will fail here when this becomes law? Seems silly for the State to do this when they depend on the taxes from tobacco for so many things. This law has gone way to far. We shall see.
I do appreciate the removal of smokers from right outside the doors of public non-smoking places. I hate walking past the parade of puffers outside the Civic Center when I go there for a show or concert.
Brad,
I am not exactly sure what you mean.
If you mean own and operate a smoke-free bar I would have difficulty as I currently have a job I like and I believe I would come up short on investment capital. A good idea nonetheless. I wish I had started working on that years ago.
If you mean steer others to alternate locations I would attempt to do so if I knew which places were smoke-free. This falls on me. Ignorance is never an excuse and I am unfortunately guilty. If there are more places I could go I would gladly accept suggestions.
Emtronics,
I welcome a list of smoke-free bars. As I explained above I am guilty of ignorance and honestly a lack of effort. Instead of seeking out new places I just stayed away. I most certainly could have been more proactive and less apathetic.
As for going to Starbucks I would do so, but I would end up sitting alone. I really quite enjoy the cafe atmosphere, but the solitude of a cafe is not always best suited for larger more energetic crowds.
I understand the fears of bars and restaurants closing. That is why I was against Peoria enacting a local smoking ban. I believe the ban has to be enforced on a minimum of the State level otherwise closures will became a realty as witnessed by many bar owners across Chicago neighborhoods.
This is all my personal opinion and as such based on my own observations. I do not believe bars will lose revenue to the point of closure because smokers refuse to go. I would guess that for every smoker that refuses to go one non-smoker will take their place. I could be very wrong. It happens a lot, but I personally know several non-smokers that would willingly take the smokers place.
As for the tobacco tax issue. I would like to be able to say the State has planned for this, but we all know better. So I guess the short answer is: I don’t know? Higher taxes I guess. That always seems to fix what ails. I do not think this ban will be a smooth transition, but I do believe the repercussions will be less significant than many will have you believe (at least in the near term).
Like I said before we are now embarking on the slippery slope.
If there is an analogous case I would like to know what it is. Smoking affects everybody. Is there anything else in the public space that could be deemed offensive to some and pleasant to others. Some other “thing” that is as overbearing as cigarette smoke.
Again, these are my opinions and I am more than willing to hear what others think and believe.
…besides all those people in THX 1138 seemed very happy to be told what to do…
Stephen
There are rabid anti-smoking nazis who, if there is one last small corner of Peoria where smoking is allowed, will insist on going there just so they can complain about the smoking.
And for Christ’s sake, Conrad. Are you really that upset about your 3 second ordeal?
I actually am thrilled with this law. There are places currently that I like the food a lot but I don’t go there because I don’t want to smell the smoke.
I don’t buy the fact that places will go out of business because of no smoking. Why? Because there is no alternative for smokers to go other than their own home. Now, if say, Peoria would have passed a no smoking law and East Peoria & Pekin didn’t, then smokers would have an alternative place to go.
I totally agree with C.J. When these people started their businesses, their business model included smoking and built their clientle around it. Now, the people who have sunk their hard earned dollars, time and lives into their business are forced to change a signficiant part of their business. It isn’t like the health department is forcing the kitchen to wear plastic gloves all the time. People had choices to go into smoking establishments or not; no one forced them in. However, little kids are strapped into their car seats while mom and dad puff away. Think our lawmakers’ priorities are screwed up.
I’m sorry? What were you guys saying? Ohhh … you’re all bitchin’ and moanin’ in an attempt to kill the buzz I’m getting from all this wonderful smoke-free air. Sorry … ain’t workin’. 😉
Why should I have to walk through a wall of smokey haze to get to a non-smoking building? Yeah, it is lousy. When I go to a place where smoking is allowed, I have to shut up and put up. Nazi is a strong word and your use of it is inappropriate, Vonster.
About a year ago, a local blogger, and I forget whom, suggested that a law be passed for restaurants and bars to place signage indicating either “smoking” or “non-smoking.” Then let the free market and free will decide. I thought it was a great idea as the patron decides who to give their business to and no one loses their rights. Instead, we have a state law so strick that *even* private clubs cannot allow smoking. Funny how some wanted to exclude casinos because they thought it would weaken tax revenues.
But because we now have a law forbiding private clubs from allowing smoking, there is precedence to further the ban into your own private home. Don’t think it won’t happen? The government came into our own cars, our own personal property, and mandated that we wear seatbelts. I understand the issue of second hand smoke, but whether I wear a seat belt or not, how does that jeopardize other peoples health and/or lives?
As Chef Kevin claimed, a small business owner whated to cater to those who choose to smoke. They drafted their business plan on it and built their business around it. Now some do-gooders want to tell them no and make them change their business against their wishes. Smokers can’t have their own sanctuary? They were there first. If smoking and second hand smoke is *this* bad for people, then why shouldn’t tobacco be outlawed all together?
This is more bad legislation from those that gave us the electric rate freeze in ’97.
Common Sense Dude …. but whether I wear a seat belt or not, how does that jeopardize other peoples health and/or lives?
Some people would argue that wearing your seltbelt would not raise their health care premiums in case you survive a dibilitating crash which requires long-term medical care … or if a person has state assisted health care — same scenario ….
I agree — a slippery slope and it will unfortunately continue to increase with our liberties and rights being eroded. In fact, if you take the time to start reading a lot of the legislation already enacted and in place but not currently enforced … the effect will be chilling when all the laws are enforced simultaneously at some point in the future….
Regarding the legal basis for wearing seat belts, take a look at People v. Kohrig. It’s actually rather frightening, and could easily be used as precedent for outlawing smoking (and many other activities) in one’s home.
Conrad: 2 words – John Banzhaf.
Dumb law, another one on the books with no provision to enforce. We pass yet another law to make a few whining goofballs happy and yet when will we hire the humans to enforce this bad boy. Never gonna happen. I will smoke all damn day wherever I want, I will then hop in my car and crank up my pounding subwoofers to 11 drive home through your neighborhood very fast running your stop signs and when I get home I will go out and shoot some hoops in the street. Just try and stop me!!